—
The following is a guest column from local racer Sean Foster, who also operates the website Short Track Racer with Max Collins
The views and opinions expressed in these columns are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the RaceDayCT staff.
—
The Movement and Communication Between Tracks
Sean Foster
There are many racing regions in the country that seem to lack communication and collaboration. The greatest proof of this is the disconnection of rules, divisions, and schedules. This divide is possibly the most tasteless attribute of short track racing. When people from the business community recognize this lack of unity it become a massive anchor in building progression in the sport. Tracks also seem to not realize the potential benefits from working together with other speedways in the area.
Speedways have very similar operational equipment necessities but it seems that tracks don’t work together to acquire these items. Certain high-dollar purchases put undue strain on individual race tracks. Cooperative purchasing with other facilities not only provides financial relief to each track but also provides cohesive solutions to problems that tend to be repetitive. One example is to share technical inspection equipment such as templates, gauges, and tech manuals to create a more standard inspection that remains consistent throughout the region. Tracks with similar rules can work together to build a technical information database to save valuable time and resources by avoiding redundancies in inspection.
Track maintenance equipment can be jointly purchased by multiple tracks to reduce financial strain. Landscaping equipment, track cleaning and maintenance machines, track preparation machinery, and painting supplies are just a few small examples of items that tracks can share. Facilities could also share trusted contractors for certain jobs to help reduce costs.
Entertainment equipment purchases could become a joint effort between surrounding race tracks. For example, a large screen television for fan viewing would be a major benefit to any racing facility. Incidentally, the cost of such a piece of equipment is prohibitive and the rigorous required maintenance is often a barrier that makes its purchase impractical. However, if this expense was shared by multiple speedways and a mobile video unit was purchased rather than a permanently fixed unit, the financial burden would be reduced to a more practical figure. Furthermore, the same film crew could be hired for multiple tracks to create a more efficient product.
Beyond the joint efforts of cooperative purchases it is vital for short track racing to work towards a movement. The movement would show progression of having similar rules and divisions throughout the country. This would be a system that could take 20 years to get to an ideal situation but the sooner tracks realize the benefits of common rules, the sooner we can reach that goal and build a more practical and appealing sport. Obviously, dirt and asphalt divisions have evolved in separate directions and some regions have different followings. However, there are many divisions that can be slowly altered until common ground is reached. Then, at some point, it would be appealing for a racer to have the option to voyage to different race tracks without committing to a traveling series.
Visit Short Track Racer to read the remainder of the column …
—
Does Pepsi call Coke and ask them for their recipe? Get real sean
The “disconnection” is by design. It’s also known as competition.
The bigger the dog, the more control it has, then on down the pecking order.
weeklyRacer and darealgoodfella: I believe that this blog series is written under the assumption that short track racing is in rough shape regarding spectator turnout, car count and general popularity. There is a definite problem and one way to work towards a solution is for tracks to do it together.
I understand both of your points, and in a healthy market I think competition between tracks would be a good thing. However, we aren’t in the ‘good old days’ of packed grandstands and 25 car fields anymore. In order to make the local racing community strong again it wouldn’t be a bad idea for tracks to “share the recipe” with other local tracks, especially if they don’t run their respective programs on the same night of the week.
Max, there are only so many customers available to a fixed number of tracks. Attendance is down at all tracks. The weak will perish. Business is cruel. Any track can go attend another track to sample the recipe and secret sauce.
If the tracks had one set of rules amongst them, the cars will go to the tracks with the best purses, leaving the track with the smallest purses to dwindle and die. Different rules sort of keeps cars close to home. All these cars are not going to run all three tracks each and every week.
Being a just a “fan in the stands”, I’ve always wondered why in our “weather changing by the minute” area of the country, no tracks have teamed up on purchasing a jet dryer, track-vac or an air titan. I’m sure race teams as well as spectators would appreciate having one and maybe be more likely to go to the race if the weather is “iffy.” After it rains, you’d have a lot shorter time waiting to go racing. The “driving vehicles & draggin’ tires” method seems to take forever when all you’re doing is waiting for the track to dry.
Pepsi and Coke are competitors. That doesn’t relate to the thoughts and ideas I’m sharing.
In my opinion, if local tracks see each other as competitors then that’s a problem. We’re not in a position to view it as such. There are millions of ways to separate yourself from surrounding race tracks. There are many aspects in which one track can provide a better product than others (one of which being darealgoodfellas example of higher payouts). So when it comes to divisions and scheduling I’m pretty sure those are 2 areas that local tracks can work together on. I’m talking about building the sport as a whole… I’m talking about making things easier for the guests and racers, growing the popularity… which in the long run will become more profitable for each track.
And I’m not talking about giving away success secrets. Divisions and schedules are not secrets, every January tracks release their rules and event calendar to the public.
Just guessing but jobs requiring heavy equipment is sub contracted and the smaller stuff isn’t worth the cost of labor to transport I wouldn’t think. Paints are consumed and the trend in video is links to apps like Periscope to your own phone that you can control the replay on. Now at a Bon Jovi concert with 50000 people and monster ticket prices mobile video is a must and can be rented. Common rules-great-not happening in Ct. for reasons we all know. Making tech sharing in Ct a non starter. Maybe somewhere, just not here. In fact whether it’s the modified tours, Stafford or Waterford it almost seems like in most cases the tracks and tours go out of their way to avoid commonality.
We’re nasty in New England and don’t work well with each other. It’s in our DNA. Has something to do with the weather and the rocks in the soil I hear. Maybe in the Midwest or Canada. They’re real nice there.
For what it’s worth, I think the common rules for Waterford and Thompson has helped car counts at both tracks. Thompson teams have a place to race other than the limited schedule, and Waterford teams have extra mid-week races they can run. Also, some of the Seekonk LM teams run Thompson thanks to the ACT rules. It seems Lee and Star in NH work together with rules in some categories as well. Some of the car-count issues may be related to expenses involved; it costs a lot more to race multiple times a week than it did “back in the day”. And car counts will always help spectator counts.
Can some one explain to a nonracer why they wouldn’t want to share common rules. I have often heard Stafford has there rules so only those drivers can race there. Yet Rocco won championships at all three tracks last summer. Did he have to make major changes to his cars to compete at each of the three tracks. A couple of years ago he won at the bowl with his Thompson car after he destroyed his bowl car. So what really are the differences? Thanks Sean keep up the good work too
Racer 28 it’s in the setup of the car. Ryan Preece was questioned at a Speedbowl SK race once why he wasn’t there with his Stafford SK car from the night before. He told the announcer it takes a day’s work to swap out suspension components (shocks, springs, & ??) to have the right setup for the different track.
Gears too I would think with regard to Preece.
This video may give you an idea why Rocco won championships at three different tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Djg4UfZGqY
I suppose with gear and suspension changes you can run SK’s and Lights at Waterford, Thompson and Stafford. Others may know the fine points. With regard to Late Models Waterford and Thompson use the ACT rules and Stafford has their own that are similar in neither chassis or engine. Streets at Stafford use rear gears in the mid 3’s and two barrels, Waterford and Thompson rear gears in the mid 4’s and 4 barrels. LLM’s and Mini”s are unique to specific tracks. Probably more differences that others can sight.
Maybe we don’t give credit to tracks for knowing their racers. Maybe they see that a limited number of teams run an entire schedule at one track probably because of the expense. Doesn’t it follow that the idea that they would race multiple tracks in one week with common rules seem more like wishful thinking.
Doug- I feel like I missed out on an important element in these statements… you mention the use of mobile phones for replays; I like the idea of a big screen much more. Biggest reason is during the show we want to keep fans off their phones… We want their heads up and attention directed towards the stage (meaning the racetrack). Replays on a big screen allow folks to focus together on that same spot and debate on an incident. The biggest reason I like the big screen is for marketing opportunities.
Fast Eddie- great example of sharing equipment with the track drying process. However, I have to debate the comment about swapping suspension components. When talking about CT Modifieds I’m pretty sure the cars are all pretty close in rules and I don’t think guys like Preece/Rocco would have to do much suspension/setup changes to go from one to the other. The big hindrance is gear/rear end. There is a rotating weight advantage to running a rear end that isn’t a quick change. It’s not a huge project but it’s certainly one reason why we don’t see SK racers more often competing at multiple tracks in a week.
And Racer28, Rocco typically races 3 cars for 3 tracks. I believe he does 1 car per track to avoid complication. Like he won’t have to swap motors during the year for rebuilds if he doesn’t feel necessary. His situation is a little different because I believe his Stafford car is owned by John Rufrano.
I had no idea that rotating mass was the reason quick change rears weren’t universally popular. Good information.
I’ll respectfully disagree on the big screen video. I remember when Staffords worked and it was nice but I myself would much prefer an app I could control and review on my phone. Stafford has the video capability so it’s ultra cost effective. Another consideration is if the goal is to attract a new demographic does either a big screen video or a jet dryer move in that direction with impact. Even on a cost sharing basis. If you only have so many dollars to spend on new bells and whistles I would question whether that attracts new people or improves the experience for those already attending.
In the interest of thinking outside the box maybe the tech savvy crowd could weigh in on this notion. An in house app that is produced by a track like Stafford. Complete with driver profiles, race information, replay video and commercials. Piped right to your phone on a subscription basis. A mobile and better Pitstopper Magazine. I’d pay a little bit more for that. And to take it further a service the track could subcontract to other tracks or even other types of events. Maybe it already exists.
Fast Eddie and Sean thanks for clarifying for me the differences. They look the same from the outside. I didn’t realize all the differences underneath. I didn’t realize Keith had a car for each track. I knew had had a couple of cars but didn’t realize how different they were for each track. Thanks
SF22, thanks for the rear gear info. I’m sure that wouldn’t be an easy swap when racing Friday, getting home rather late, and trying to get to the Saturday track in the afternoon.
The other disadvantage of a quick change is it takes up more space between the rear and fuel cell.. so the fuel cell has to be mounted further back on the car which is not an ideal place for weight. Again the rear swap is not a huge project if you have a second rear end ready to go for a swap but it’s just enough of a project for a team to say “na let’s not bother”. What I wish tracks would do is create a balance for items like this. Ex: if you run a straight rear you have to weigh 20lbs more total weight vs running a quick change.
Simple fix, make the QC rear mandatory since it already is in the WMT and MRS. The cost between the two is not much different. Cost less to own 1 QC rear and multiple gear sets vs. multiple straight rears especially if you want to run many tracks. Do a phase in so the teams have time to financially plan for the change over.
Don’t allow a straight rear, just like the mod tour. Saves money for everyone.
Weight is not the equalizer, more gear for the QC is.
Perhaps missing the forest fore the trees. Mandating anything is not simple and you can start with Rocco and Owen who have numerous straight rears. There’s even a shop tour video of Rocco going through them all that he has probably done already for next year. Then there is the cost of racing multiple tracks and the suspension changes that are a factor. Mandate for whom? Maybe not racing multiple tracks has more to do with the new racing reality them equipment.
Why not that simple? Phase them in and make them mandatory in 2020 for the SK & SKL that way it give the teams time to financially plan for the change.
What suspension change? Springs, adjust shock pressures, maybe a sway bar? Set ride heights, drop it on the scale, set the toe and let it rip.
Remove drive shaft, change straight rear, then square it, minimum 1 hour if you are really good. Then there is the cost of the mounting brackets mounted on each and every straight rear to save time swapping them, every time you change it.
Quick Change rear, one and only one, pop the cover off, gears out, gears in, top off fluid, 10 minutes done! No squaring no BS. Huge cost savings from owning multiple straight rears vs. 1 QC rear even with multiple gear sets.
Take it from a guy that has done it more times than I can count on my hands and feet. We are making way to much out of this.
I have zero experience with modified rear ends and am only listening to what others say. Based on that it sounds like the assumption that going to a universal quick change rear end would result in more crossover of cars to other tracks is a false premise. It’s moot anyway since it’s not happening.
And I look at the wall of numerous, now worthless straight rears.
Oh well.
QC should have been made the standard rear a long time ago. Give the cars a slight weight break for the extra drag. Bada-bing!
To make a straight rear a quick change you only need to buy the center section not the whole rear. Also I bet 80% of the teams have a quick change in the garage. One other note – if stafford allowed 8″ ring gear tomorrow – 80% of the teams would be on the phone tomorrow ordering a new rear, so a rule change like this is not really a big deal. Not sure why these tracks keep changing the rules to allow extra things like the last transmission addition at a tune of 2k….. now 80% of the sk teams will buy a new transmission, clutch disks and yoke…, many pissed off car owners, more money in Arute’s pocket since he sells them.
If the QC rears are made standard, why a weight break for the extra drag? What am I missing?
Steve, changing a center section of a straight is not a quick change operation.
humphry, just to make like they got something other than aggravation. Maybe make up for the extra weight of the QC unit and extra drag.
Arute sell transmissions? Which Arute and hows that deal work? Certain Richmond and Jerico transmissions legal? Could it be cause guys were spending a ton on transmission modifications before and they decided to expand the purpose built part no choices. Just curious.
What transmission modifications? If you run a Saginaw or Muncie, they are supposed to be untouched with exception of 1st gear removal of Muncie. Teams went to Saginaw because of lighter rotating weight and are actually cheaper but guys like magnus and tranny clinic started to charge astronomical prices to rebuild a STOCK tranny…or were they? Page forward to today, competitors begged for the Richmond and Jericho’s, a sizable purchase, but a further advantage with less friction straight cut gears and even less rotating weight. BUT, I still can’t legally modify my existing Muncie to make up for the losses affected by these rule changes.
“Modifications”. My use of the word was based on the fact everyone seems to have to thank their transmission builder these days with Magnus being the name I hear so much. I assumed, incorrectly apparently that if you’re going to spend a pile of money on a tranny it is something other then a simple rebuild.
OK then lot’s of great inside information but from guys that are pretty much mad. I get it. You have a bunch into a Muncie or Saginaw and the new transmissions have a decided advantage. I’d be mad as well. But forget the unfairness for a second let me ask a couple questions. Won’t a Jericho or Richmond last longer? Spend the two grand plus and you’re good for longer then nursing an antique. Aren’t Muncie’s and Saginaws getting harder and harder to find and aren’t they worth a ton of money to car enthusiasts. I’m asking, not arguing.
I can’t speak to the longevity of the aftermarket, but my Muncie is surviving going on 30 years in an SK without ever being rebuilt. But my point is the tracks are easily swayed, by a minority in my opinion, into making expensive rule changes without some type of concession for the majority. Getting back to Sean’s point, though, track cooperation in regards to rule consistency will only benefit our regions sport. With tools like the RPM promoters workshop conferences, that I am sure representatives from all tracks attend, things will only get better. Or maybe not because we appear to be beating this dead horse.
That’s the point. You have had the same transmission forever so why would anyone set want to see a change. Was the rule change made because the Arutes have a vested interest and can profit on it as was said. Was it made because the front runners with big bucks pushed management to make the change because they think it’s a competitive advantage. Was it made because Muncie’s and Saginaws are obsolete and hard to get and something had to be done for the future. Was there a lower cost transmission like a 5 speed or such that could have been used. I’m seeing Muncie’s advertised as rebuilt for $1500 plus with a question mark as to their racing suitability. Seems like a purpose built, ready to go no drama tranny in the lower $2000 range that you can bolt in may not be a bad rule change. If you’re set no amount of lipstick is going to make that rule change look good.
I agree with Bob the tracks need to come up with common rules
Magnus? He has not been in business for over a year. He works for Jericho. If you want one of his transmissions worked on It goes to Jericho.
Ouch! Nice dart humphry. I didn’t know that. But what you underestimate is an old mans mind muddling podium interviews from not just last year but over a series of years. Point is that tranny builders are getting mentioned. Including Brian Narducci mentioning his uncle Jeff Pearl building his transmission with a special sauce no doubt. Now that I know happened last year. Used to be all a transmission had to do is be light, good on restarts and not break. Really 1 to 1, how hard is that? Now it’s a whole category that helps break budgets and gets people mad.
I thought we were trying to control or reduce the cost of racing not increase it.
Don’t know where you are getting 2k for a Jericho from, let’s try 3k and that does not include the shifter.
Steve eluded to 2K and he sounded angry but credible. I tried doing a search for the Stafford approved Richmond and Jerico part numbers but apparently its very specialized. Jerico quotes based on options.
So what’s your solution humphry you big old smarty pants? You’re the expert. You’ve made it clear that you don’t approve.Are you saying they should have stuck with the old rule? Are you saying there isn’t a supply issue? If there is and another transmission is more cost effective what is it?
And that’s my point Doug. 3k transmissions when there are other options out there. Not enough Saginaw trannys, plenty out there and parts available to repair them. Muncies, had an M21, first gear removed and the case was worn where the lower shaft goes through. Took it to Magnus (when he was in business), dropped it off, week later got it back, new case, changed out 3rd gear to a different ratio for better restarts, good to go and got the job done. Owning multiple straight rears when all you need is 1 quick change.
The guys with the money lobby for the best of the best, keep acquiring the toys to go fast, and the rest without money fall behind. And the track promoters keep listening to the rich and ignore the poor. Then they bitch about low car counts. Pretty simple analogy.
So what I’m hearing is that when you raced humphry you had no problem getting a guy no longer in business fix your Muncie at a time that was a good while back. It’s an opinion. Certainly more informed then mine. But it’s just so tedious hearing these generic rants about the big guys getting what they want at the cost of the little guys and supporting the status quo that in this case is antique transmissions. It could be true but usually there’s more to the story. What Stafford generally is known to err on is the safe side. Don’t rock the boat unless it’s necessary. Exhibit one Limited Late Models. All you guys are saying is they decided to massively rock the boat in favor of the top guys and risk alienating tighter budget teams and risking lower car counts. Doesn’t compute. I just wish we could get the other side of the story.
Here is the deal – sk modified was started to offer a lower cost modified division. After 15 years and all the rule changes -multiple engine changes, tranny, clutch, shocks etc. it became the same cost as an open modified. If they just left rules the same it would be more affordable today than it is…. I know we can’t go back in time but the reality is every rule change cost the owners money. Yeah it’s nice when you are just starting out as an owner and you have a lot of money – then you can just buy the best there is and go racing but not so nice when your equipment is obsoleted every other year.
Steve you are right, that is when I got into the SK Modifieds. Why did I call it quits? Updated rules lobied for by the “richie riches” and other than a dry sump system you are tickling the cost of an open mod. Then they came out with the next affordable modified, the SKL. And what are they doing with that? Pricing it out of existence. They need to leave well enough alone, reduce the cost of racing, and try to figure out how to put cars in the pits and buts in the stands.
And by the way Doug, those same Muncies and Saginaws can still be rebuilt and repaired today. Shortage of parts? That is pure BS………
I get that. Skowyra, Rob Fuller, Quinn Christopher, Rocco, Pennink, Owen and more I’m sure have no problem with more expensive bells and whistles. But it is the top division at Stafford, they get good car counts and the racing is outstanding. Ever consider dropping down to the Lights or is that a stupid idea?
Years ago Jim Peterson finished 2nd in the Late Model feature at Thompson’s Icebreaker to Jim Mavlogones. Tech time they teched tranny’s Jim Peterson got his first career win because Jim M had an expensive built tranny. Jim Peterson’s tranny came out of an old Chevy truck at Stafford auto recycling the week before and still had rust on the inner case. That tranny lasted 10 years till a bad wreck broke 3 ears off it.
Steve, name the last rule change prior to this… the move to allow jericho was pretty simple, waterford and thompson already made the move and its a better transmission. Simple as that. We all know Steve is stuck in 1970’s and hasnt run a car in 20 years
I’m more like stuck in the early 2000’s – too young to own a car in the 70’s. I can name a few changes – spec engine is one, don’t believe there is a non spec engine in the field, Richmond tranny was the first non stock tranny allowed now you have to buy s Jericho to be on top, shocks, super clutch which now you have to buy new disks to change over to a Jericho plus the yoke.
Why step back to an SKL? If all the tracks would make a move to get their house in order and control costs that would be a great start.
Last major rule change in the SK’s clutches……..
Another one SK spec engine……
OK I’ll ask another stupid question. At Stafford there are maybe 6 guys that are likely to win on any given night and maybe 3 or 4 more that could win if the stars are aligned as Ted Christopher once said. 10 through 22 are racing to be the best they can be on a given night but unlikely to get a podium finish. They generally lack something and it’s usually the best equipment. Whether it’s the trans or something else they just don’t have the best. For these guys if you take every element that gets a car the best time on the half mile will a Jerico or Richmond transmission make that big a difference in their finish? And will that fraction of a second if it exists between having a good Muncie or a new Jerico be that big a difference in their performance on a week to week basis? Asking not judging.
Steve,
Not sure if when you looked up the price you read the different options they have. Jerico offers the new transmission with the coarse shaft so people can use the same discs. Also they offer an option to have a different yoke so people don’t have to change there drive shafts either.
A lot of drivers already have Jerico transmissions as both Thompson and Waterford allow them. Now the rules are similar between all tracks giving the drivers the ability to race with minimal changes.
Proper reasons for rule changes:
1. Save race teams money 2. increase safety 3. level the competition
Jerico advantages: better product and lasts longer… perhaps save money in the long run.
Jerico disadvantages: better product and cost… The better product creates an advantage to the teams who can afford them.
Here’s my feelings as one of those teams trying to dig out of the 10-22 category.. I can’t afford to buy a Jerico at this time. Now, I’m not one of those teams complaining about being at a disadvantage because what the hell is a transmission going to do for me when I cant even make the car turn left the way I want it to. However, I can guarantee there are other teams who also can’t afford the Jerico and will blame that disadvantage on their lack of performance. Stack up a couple other performance items they can’t afford and now you have a team that has gotten so discouraged their race cars sit idle. You have a race car sidelined for 2-3 years and now you have a vehicle that is becoming more and more obsolete with updated rules.
I mentioned earlier in the thread in regards to quick change rear ends… How about if you use a Saginaw/Muncie you get a 20 lb weight break for the first 5 years of Jerico’s inception. humphry mentioned weight not being a good equilizer… Well, it’s not an exact method of leveling the playing field but at least the teams with Saginaw/Muncie won’t grow frustrated and complain about costs as much… they’ll say “ok, we can deal with that” because they have 5 years… in that time they can budget a new transmission, sell their current trannys, and/or make the change if/when their current trannys become damaged. Just one thought of reducing complaints in the pit area (a big issue in our sport).
Sean, I agree with your reasoning on rule changes. I also like weight breaks to even the competition. Too bad the tracks don’t think like us anymore. I remember early on the sk’s had to run a 5.7″ rod then they opened up to a 6″ rod and we had to bolt on 100 lbs if we ran the 6″ at Thompson. We just said we had 5.7″ and tried to finish 4th. I would say the tranny is a bigger advantage then a 6″ rod
If you take everything that goes into a cars ability to go around the track. Springs and their interaction with each other, shocks, engine,stagger, toe out, rear end, trans plus all the things I don’t know about I wonder. What is the actual advantage of the newer transmissions. Sure you guys with the old stuff have a beef. But I doubt if you don’t even know what the quantifiable advantage is to the trans the guys that invest in it are going to be wild about bolting on weight. In fact I’d bet they’d howl louder and longer. Is the beef with Stafford or Waterford and Thompson? Do you want common rules or not? And to be clear, being in the 10 to 22 tier of car is not a bad thing. These cars are a critical part of the show and making gains in position is as important as winning to some. My favorite guy is one of them and when he gets a top 10 it’s magic.
Doug, you are missing the point. We understand it won’t knock a couple of tenths off a lap time or turn a tenth place car into a winner but in a game of inches it could be worth a spot or two on a restart or getting that jump off a turn to finish that pass. With that large of an investment I asked the speedway if we could remove and extra gear out of our tranny. Rob Arute’s response was as uneducated as yours. (Sorry for being blunt) Race specific components are built as such for a reason.
I believe I self identified as being relatively ignorant on the topic Bob so no offense taken. I appreciate you taking the time to educate me and maybe other people as well. On the other hand you’re clearly financially and emotionally invested in this so maybe you’re not as objective as you could be.
Within a division cars tend to gravitate and race with other cars of like potential. True racing is a game of inches and the slightest advantage means everything in the short term. But in the context of the entire race the latest trans is not going to help you stop Rocco or Pennink from passing you if you’re a 12 place car. You’re racing with people in you tier that likely have the same level of equipment.
You’ve got a beef for sure. My question is why not talk to a guy like Tom Fox first that knows what you’re talking about. If you get him on board he may be able to interpret to all the ignorant guys in management that have the same lack of understanding as me.
Unfortunately Fox works for Arute so his hands are tied. Unless Arute agrees with the changes nothing will ever change especially when the $$$$$$$ continue to roll through the gate.